Kosinski Robert J 2005 A Literature Review of Reaction Time
Indian J Psychol Med. 2013 Jul-Sep; 35(3): 273–277.
A Comparative Study of Simple Auditory Reaction Fourth dimension in Blind (Congenitally) and Sighted Subjects
Pritesh Hariprasad Gandhi
Department of Physiology, Government Medical College, Bhavnagar, Gujarat, Republic of india
Pradnya A. Gokhale
Section of Physiology, Government Medical College, Bhavnagar, Gujarat, India
H. B. Mehta
Section of Physiology, Government Medical College, Bhavnagar, Gujarat, India
C. J. Shah
Section of Physiology, Government Medical Higher, Bhavnagar, Gujarat, India
Abstract
Background:
Reaction time is the time interval betwixt the application of a stimulus and the appearance of appropriate voluntary response by a subject. Information technology involves stimulus processing, decision making, and response programming. Reaction time written report has been pop due to their implication in sports physiology. Reaction time has been widely studied as its practical implications may be of corking result e.g., a slower than normal reaction time while driving tin can have grave results.
Objective:
To written report simple auditory reaction time in congenitally blind subjects and in age sexual activity matched sighted subjects. To compare the simple auditory reaction time between congenitally blind subjects and healthy control subjects.
Materials and Methods:
Study had been carried out in two groups: The 1st of 50 congenitally bullheaded subjects and iind grouping comprises of l healthy controls. It was carried out on Multiple Choice Reaction Time Apparatus, Inco Ambala Ltd. (Accuracy±0.001 due south) in a sitting position at Government Medical College and Hospital, Bhavnagar and at a Bullheaded School, PNR campus, Bhavnagar, Gujarat, Bharat.
Observations/Results:
Elementary auditory reaction fourth dimension response with four unlike type of sound (horn, bell, ring, and whistle) was recorded in both groups. Co-ordinate to our report, there is no significant different in reaction fourth dimension between congenital blind and normal salubrious persons.
Decision:
Blind individuals commonly use tactual and auditory cues for information and orientation and they reliance on impact and audience, together with more practice in using these modalities to guide beliefs, is ofttimes reflected in improve functioning of blind relative to sighted participants in tactile or auditory bigotry tasks, just in that location is non whatever difference in reaction fourth dimension betwixt congenitally blind and sighted people.
Keywords: Auditory reaction fourth dimension, built blind, sighted subject
INTRODUCTION
Reaction time is the fourth dimension interval between the application of a stimulus and the advent of appropriate voluntary response by a subject field every bit quickly as possible.[one] Information technology is a mensurate of function of sensorimotor clan[2] and operation of an private.[3] Information technology involves stimulus processing, conclusion making, and response programming.
Reaction time has been widely studied as its practical implications may exist of great result, e.g., a slower than normal reaction time while driving can take grave results. Many factors such equally physiological, psychological, pharmacological etc., accept been shown to impact reaction times. They are age,[4] sex,[4,5] gender,[4,six] handedness,[vii,viii] physical fitness,[nine,ten] sleep,[9] fatigue,[9] distraction,[9,11] alcohol,[12] caffeine,[13] diabetes,[14] personality blazon and whether the stimulus is auditory or visual. Reaction time written report has been popular due to their implication in sports physiology.[6]
The model for information flow within an organism can exist represented in this fashion.[fifteen,16,17]
Stimulus → Receptors → Integrator → Effectors → Response
More specific in man, the data flow tin can be represented in this manner.
Stimulus → Sensory neuron → Spinal Cord or Encephalon → Motor Neurone → Response.
Types of auditory reaction fourth dimension
-
Unproblematic reaction fourth dimension: 1 stimulus and one response (Shorter duration)
-
Recognition reaction time: There are some stimuli that should be responded to (the 'Memory gear up'), and others that should get no response (the 'Distracter set'). There is yet but i correct response (Longer)
-
Choice reaction time: There are multiple stimuli and multiple responses. The reaction must correspond to the correct stimulus (Longest duration).
Uncomplicated auditory reaction time[15,16,17,18] is the time interval between the onset of the single stimulus and the initiation of the response under the condition that the subject has been instructed to respond every bit chop-chop equally possible.
-
It evaluates the processing speed of key nervous system (CNS) and coordination betwixt the sensory and motor systems. Reaction time measurement includes the latency in sensory neural code traversing peripheral and central pathways, perceptive and cognitive processing, and a motor indicate traversing both central and peripheral neuronal structures and finally the latency in the terminate effectors activation (i.e., musculus activation)
-
Due to its simplicity, it can exist assessed in blind participants.[19,twenty] Bernard et al. pointed out that the most important sensory modalities in the activities of the bullheaded are touch (proprioception) and hearing. For this reason, the possibility that the blind possess a detail sensitivity with reference to touch and hearing is oftentimes assumed; it is therefore implied that the blind might be superior to the sighted in tasks in which touch and hearing are the most important performance elements. Bernard et al. showing there is no pregnant difference in reaction time between normal sighted groups and congenitally blind sighted group,[19] whereas Kujala et al, Neimyese et al., Collignon et al. and Naveen et al. studies showing significant alteration in the reaction time. Many theories of Cross Modeling Sensory Reorganization or Backdrop of Plasticity in CNS had been postulated regarding this superiority. Previous studies in the past on auditory reaction time in blind participants having contradictory findings.[21]
JUSTIFICATION OF Report
Blindness is the functional disorders of sense organs may intensify the remaining senses. It is presumed that bullheaded persons do not just hear better and take an intensified tactile sense just as well take a stronger sense of smell. Better hearing ability was demonstrated past auditory evoked potentials, only the auditory reaction fourth dimension is an ideal tool for measuring the level of sensory motor association.[22,23]
OBJECTIVES OF STUDY
To report simple auditory reaction time in congenitally blind subjects. To compare the simple auditory reaction fourth dimension between congenitally blind subjects and healthy command subjects.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
After obtaining ethical clearance certificate from Institutional Review Lath, Government Medical Higher, Bhavnagar, Gujarat, Bharat. We carried out this study in two groups: 1st group comprises of l congenital bullheaded and the 2nd of l healthy controls. anest group was containing 42 built blind male and eight congenital blind females. Mean historic period was 23.56±8.92 years. twond grouping was containing 43 healthy male and seven good for you female volunteers. Mean age was xix.56±half-dozen.28. Study was carried out in a sitting position later taking anthropometric data. It was carried out on Multiple Option Reaction Time Appliance, Inco Ambala Ltd. (Accuracy±0.001 s) at Authorities Medical College, Sir T. General hospital and Blind school, PNR campus, Bhavnagar.
Procedures done earlier obtaining elementary reaction time
The detailed data of study to participants and informed written consent was taken before staring the reaction time. Proper grooming of participants was carried out and noesis on precautions was given to them. The testing procedures were quite simple, non-invasive and harmless from subject field's point of view. Subjects were explained and demonstrated about the procedure to be performed. A blindfold was given to participants (both congenital blind and controls) made up from dark black cotton material. Index finger of the dominant hand of participant was used on the cardinal to get a response. Same instruction was given to both groups to printing the central as shortly as they hear a sound. Practice period of three trials with an instrument at each central (horn, bell, band, whistle) were given to all participants. They were allowed to do plenty practice equally reaction time depends on the subject making a maximal alacrity. Iii times simple auditory reaction time was taken, and out of them fastest response was used for this written report. Full series of tests takes fourth dimension of nearly 4-v min. All tests were recorded in sitting comfy and relaxed position in the chair on before lunch and with no any tight clothing which substantially restricts discomfort. Following precaution was taken during data collection:
-
Temperature was maintain between thirty˚C and 35˚C
-
Keep kept complete silence and avoids unavoidable voice
-
Never set the instrument near any kind of disturbances
-
Keep kept proper comfort for study participants.
Statistical assay
The data were put in Microsoft Excel sheets. The mean and SD were count with the help of Excel. The information between cases and controls were analyzed in graph pad software and by unpaired exam with the demo version of Graph pad software.
RESULTS
The nowadays study was undertaken on the sample size containing 50 blind subject area and 50 healthy control subjects with applying necessary inclusion and exclusion criteria as mentioned earlier. The subjects of the written report group (Congenital blind) were screened with proper taking of history with special reference to history incomprehension (questionnaire) and with the help of their course teachers at the blind school. They were subjected to clinical exam in detail. The control healthy participants were screen out by proper examination and history taking.
Simple auditory reaction time response with four dissimilar type of sound was recorded in both groups.
In this present written report, the hateful and SD of all 4 types of sound stimulus are appraise. In congenital blind group, unproblematic mean auditory reaction time are slower in horn audio stimulus and bell sound stimulus than control grouped whereas in ring sound stimulus and whistle sound stimulus, simple mean auditory reaction time are faster than the control group [Table one].
Tabular array 1
Comparing between case and command group
Tabular array 2 shows of simple auditory reaction time response with different type of sound stimulus like horn, bell, ring and whistle by both congenitally blind and normal sighted participants.
Tabular array 2
Comaparision of simple auditory reaction fourth dimension with four dissimilar types of stimulus
By using Graphpad Instat 3 software, unpaired t-test practical for analysis of the data. The P>0.05 for all four blazon of stimulus. These shows values are no statistically significantly deviation betwixt both groups.
Table iii represents the relationship of body mass index (BMI) with simple auditory reaction fourth dimension. These values come up later on statistical analysis. The P>0.05 in all except <20 BMI grouping in horn sound, (that is by run a risk) considered as in that location are non whatsoever significant relation between BMI, and elementary auditory reaction fourth dimension in both group (1st group is <20 BMI and 2nd group is >20 BMI).
Table three
Relation of simple auditory reaction time with BMI of both groups
Word
Blind individuals unremarkably utilize tactual and auditory cues for information and orientation (east.g., auditory pedestrian signals, tactual walking stones or Braille reading). Increased reliance on touch and audience, together with more practice in using these modalities to guide behavior, is often reflected in better functioning of blind relative to sighted participants in tactile or auditory discrimination tasks.[21]
As described by Röder and Neville that blinds participants have better auditory performance than sighted participants. Outcome of this present study stated that in that location is statistically significantly no deviation in unproblematic auditory reaction time between congenitally blind and salubrious control group. This outcome is as related equally a result come by study of Bernard, which was done in x blind and 10 normal showing at that place is no meaning departure in reaction time in between group.[19]
These values are further as comparable as report washed by Borker and Pendnekar'due south.[24] Their study in normal participants showed Uncomplicated Auditory Reaction Time was 188±36 ms which is equally near to simple auditory reaction time carried out in our study participants of both congenital blind and normal sighted subjects. In this study, a blind fold is given to both group of participants for given same environment to all. No any study mention on the blind fold given to both the congenitally blind group and control group.
Namita et al., a comparative study of auditory and visual reaction time in males and females staff during shift duty in infirmary showed auditory reaction time was 215.15±47.52.[9] In our study, Auditory Reaction Time (Art) for horn sound is 210.24±90 ms in congenital blind and 186.92±73.017 ms in normal sighted participants.
Niruba and Murthy's study of auditory and visual reaction time in type 2 diabetes; A example control study, showed ART in control was 174.13±30.seven ms, which is near to this study.[25] Kujala et al, Neimyese et al, Collignon et al and Naveen et al. studies showing significant alteration in the reaction time in congenitally blind equally compare to salubrious participants.[22,26,27,28,29] All above study was done in pocket-size groups and controversy in method the employ.
In an early study in 1899 carried out by Galton a study of sound stimuli in teenagers (fifteen-19); the outcome was hateful Art was 158 ms for sound stimuli, which is accordance accordance with this study.[30]
Our finding regarding on two grouping of BMI as 1st group having <20 BMI and 2nd grouping having >20 BMI, at that place are statistically significantly no any difference betwixt them. This shows BMI has no any impact on the participant's response to auditory stimuli. A report done by Nikam and Gadkari shows that in that location was significant positive correlation between BMI and reaction times (Visual Reaction Time (VRT) and Fine art) in both males and females past Pearson correlation assay, but other factors such equally age, sex activity, habit have also effect in the Art.[4]
Determination
In this written report, there is statistically no meaning difference in reaction time between congenital blind and normal healthy persons with a different kind of sound such as horn, bong, ring, and whistle in their group. This reflected the perception and response toward external auditory stimulus among built blind and normal sighted individual are equal. Loss of one sense does not reverberate on the overacting of other sense as it deed ordinarily every bit per its' perception and growth.
Footnotes
Source of Support: Nix
Conflict of Interest: None.
REFERENCES
one. Teichner WH. Contempo studies of simple reaction time. Psychol Bull. 1954;51:128–49. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2. Shenvi D, Balasubramanian P. A comparative study of visual and auditory reaction times in males and females. Indian J Physiol Pharmacol. 1994;38:229–31. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3. Das Due south, Gandhi A, Mondal S. Upshot of premenstrual stress on audiovisual reaction fourth dimension and audiogram. Indian J Physiol Pharmacol. 1997;41:67–70. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4. Nikam LH, Gadkari JV. Effect of age, gender and torso mass index on visual and auditory reaction times in Indian population. Indian J Physiol Pharmacol. 2012;56:94–ix. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5. Nene AS, Pazare PA. A report of auditory reaction time in different phases of the normal menstrual wheel. Indian J Physiol Pharmacol. 2010;54:386–90. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6. Spierer DK, Petersen RA, Duffy K, Corcoran BM, Rawls-Martin T. Gender influence on response fourth dimension to sensory stimuli. J Force Cond Res. 2010;24:957–63. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
seven. Bulent F. Relation of manus preference, muscle power, lung function and reaction time in rt handed taekwondo players. World Appl Sci J. 2011:1288–xc. [Google Scholar]
viii. Dane S, Bayirli 1000. Correlations between hand preference and durations of hearing for right and left ears in immature healthy subjects. Percept Mot Skills. 1998;86:667–72. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9. Namita, Ranjan DP, Shenvi DN. A comparative study of auditory reaction and visual reaction fourth dimension in males and females staff during shift duty in the hospital. Biomedical Research. 2010;21:199–203. [Google Scholar]
x. O'Donovan O, Cheung J, Catley M, McGregor AH. An investigation of leg and trunk strength and reaction times of hard-mode martial arts practitioners. J Sports Sci Med. 2006;five-12 CSSI. Bachelor from: http://www.jssm.org . [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11. Van den Berg J, Neely G. Performance on a simple reaction time task while sleep deprived. Percept Mot Skills. 2006;102:589–99. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12. Moskowitz H, Fiorentino D. Washington: National Highway Traffic Rubber Administration, Section of Transportation; 2000. A review of the literature on the effect of depression doses of booze on driving-Related skills, report DOT HS 809028. [Google Scholar]
13. Linder GN. The effect of caffeine consumption on reaction fourth dimension. Bulletin of the South Carolina Academy of Science, Annual. 2001:42. [Google Scholar]
14. Parekh N, Gajbhiye IP, Wahane One thousand, Titus J. The written report of auditory and visual reaction fourth dimension in healthy controls, patients of diabetes mellitus on modern allopathic treatment, and those performing aerobic exercises. Periodical, Indian Academy of Clinical Medicine 004. 5:239–43. [Google Scholar]
fifteen. Formulate and examination hypotheses regarding reaction times. Biology 104. A online PDF literature form Radford Academy. www.radford.edu/jkel/reaction .
17. Marieb Elaine N. Human being Anatomy and Physiology Laboratory Transmission (Cat Version) seventh ed. San Francisco, California: Benjamin Cummings; 2003. Exercise 22 Human reflex physiology. Action 9: testing reaction time for bones and caused reflexes; pp. 232–3. [Google Scholar]
xviii. Kosinski RJ. Clemson Academy; 2008. A Literature Review on Reaction Time. [Google Scholar]
xix. Bernard J. Simple Auditory reaction fourth dimension in blind and sighted adolescents. Perfect Mot Skill. 1979;48:465–466. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
twenty. Scedilenol D, Serap Y, Songül D, Gul Thou, Bingol F. Hearing duration and auditory reaction time in the blind. Acta Physiol. 2011;203(Suppl 686) [Google Scholar]
21. Röder B, Neville H. Developmental functional plasticity. In: Grafman J, Robertson IH, editors. Handbook of Neuropsycho-logy: Plasticity and Rehabilitation. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science; 2003. pp. 231–70. [Google Scholar]
22. Niemeyer W, Starlinger I. Practise the blind hear ameliorate? Investigations on auditory processing in congenital or early on acquired blindness. II. Cardinal functions. Audiology. 1981;twenty:510–5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Garg A, Schwartz D, Stevens AA. Orienting auditory spatial attention engages frontal eye fields and medial occipital cortex in congenitally blind humans. Neuropsychologia. 2007;45:2307–21. [PMC gratuitous commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24. Borker As, Pendnekar JR. Auditory reaction time in normal participants. Indian J Physiol Pharmacol. 2003;47:229–30. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25. Niruba R, Murthy'due south KN. Study of auditory and visual reaction time in type 2 diabetes; A case command study. Al Ameen J Med Sci. 2011;4:274–nine. [Google Scholar]
26. Collignon O, Lassonde 1000, Lepore F, Bastien D, Veraart C. Functional cerebral reorganization for auditory spatial processing and auditory substitution of vision in early blind subjects. Cereb Cortex. 2007;17:457–65. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27. Collignon O, Vandewalle G, Voss P, Albouy G, Charbonneau One thousand, Lassonde M, et al. Functional specialization for auditory-spatial processing in the occipital cortex of congenitally bullheaded humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108:4435–40. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28. Teija Kujala, Anne Lehtokoski, Kimmo Alho, Jouni Kekoni, Risto Näätänen, Matias J. Palva, Studies showing meaning alteration in the reaction time. Acta Psychologica. 1997 Jun;96(1-2):75–82. [Google Scholar]
29. Telles S, Naveen KV. Changes in middle latency auditory evoked potentials during meditation. Psychol Rep. 2004;94:398–400. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30. Galton F. On instruments for (1) testing perception of differences of tint and for (2) determining reaction time. J Anthropol Inst. 1899;19:27–nine. [Google Scholar]
Manufactures from Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine are provided hither courtesy of Indian Psychiatric Society South Zonal Co-operative
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3821205/
0 Response to "Kosinski Robert J 2005 A Literature Review of Reaction Time"
Post a Comment